Due to the fiscal cliff......

[jkapp]

Nov 27, 2012 17:09:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The problem with the government "negotiating" prices is that the government doesn't really negotiate a price, the government dictates one.

Good. If Uncle Sam is going to use my tax money to pay for your grandpa's boner pills I want them dictating the lowest price possible.

That's what Medicare does with healthcare costs and its bankrupting the healthcare industry...

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 17:38:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

i don't really even think SS is a problem.

It's not an immediate problem, but in around 20-25 years it won't be taking in enough to pay for the crop of folks collecting at that time, and the trust will be depleted.

there is no "trust fund" to deplete, but please continue.

The shortfall will have to be made up from the general fund. Or, we can make some small changes to the program to keep it self sustaining and separate from the general fund. So, in that sense it is a problem, although it's a relatively minor one that can be fixed fairly easily.

the shortfall could also be made up by underpaying, which is what they will probably do. people will HOWL about it, and then it will get fixed. but i agree it will be relatively simple and painless.

The point was to use an example like the one above as if that makes it ok to dictate what the government will pay for all medications.

If the government is paying for medications with our tax money, why shouldn't they be able to bargain for the best price? Just because the money is coming from my pocket instead of the person receiving the meds they shouldn't care at all how much I'm paying for them? That's a pretty socialist view don't you think?

everyone loves to talk about how much of a scandal Medicare is, but nobody wants to talk about what a scandal Part B is.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 17:43:01 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Nov 27, 2012 17:09:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Good. If Uncle Sam is going to use my tax money to pay for your grandpa's boner pills I want them dictating the lowest price possible.

That's what Medicare does with healthcare costs and its bankrupting the healthcare industry...

uh huh.....

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=0

[Sum Dum Gai]

there is no "trust fund" to deplete, but please continue.

Somebody better tell the folks at the Social Security Administration because they clearly missed that memo.

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets. These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs.

Benefits to retired workers and their families, and to families of deceased workers, are paid from the OASI Trust Fund. Benefits to disabled workers and their families are paid from the DI Trust Fund. More than 98 percent of total disbursements in 2011 were for benefit payments.

A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.

Link at www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 18:01:42 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

there is no "trust fund" to deplete, but please continue.

Somebody better tell the folks at the Social Security Administration because they clearly missed that memo.

they didn't miss it. they just continually lie about it. the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping item. the system is "pay as you go". everyone knows it.

[Sum Dum Gai]

the system is "pay as you go". everyone knows it.

Yes, but they've spent the last 50 or 60 years paying out less than they take in every year. That leftover money is held in the trust fund, earning interest I might add, to pay for future expenses. It's only in the last two years that they've ever paid out more than they took in, which they got from the trust fund holding all the excess money they took in from previous years. You know, that thing you're arguing doesn't exist.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 27, 2012 17:45:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 27, 2012 17:38:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It's not an immediate problem, but in around 20-25 years it won't be taking in enough to pay for the crop of folks collecting at that time, and the trust will be depleted.

there is no "trust fund" to deplete, but please continue.

The shortfall will have to be made up from the general fund. Or, we can make some small changes to the program to keep it self sustaining and separate from the general fund. So, in that sense it is a problem, although it's a relatively minor one that can be fixed fairly easily.

the shortfall could also be made up by underpaying, which is what they will probably do. people will HOWL about it, and then it will get fixed. but i agree it will be relatively simple and painless.


If the government is paying for medications with our tax money, why shouldn't they be able to bargain for the best price? Just because the money is coming from my pocket instead of the person receiving the meds they shouldn't care at all how much I'm paying for them? That's a pretty socialist view don't you think?

everyone loves to talk about how much of a scandal Medicare is, but nobody wants to talk about what a scandal Part B is.

I imagine if a private company took the same percentage out of a person's check for 40+ years, only to keep increasing the premium on the Part B insurance each year, and if that same company covered only what was covered in Medicare....people would really be screaming.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 27, 2012 17:38:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

i don't really even think SS is a problem.

It's not an immediate problem, but in around 20-25 years it won't be taking in enough to pay for the crop of folks collecting at that time, and the trust will be depleted. The shortfall will have to be made up from the general fund. Or, we can make some small changes to the program to keep it self sustaining and separate from the general fund. So, in that sense it is a problem, although it's a relatively minor one that can be fixed fairly easily.

The point was to use an example like the one above as if that makes it ok to dictate what the government will pay for all medications.

If the government is paying for medications with our tax money, why shouldn't they be able to bargain for the best price? Just because the money is coming from my pocket instead of the person receiving the meds they shouldn't care at all how much I'm paying for them? That's a pretty socialist view don't you think?

I'm guessing you missed the point of telling the difference between negotiating vs. dictating price.

[Gardening Grandma]

I imagine if a private company took the same percentage out of a person's check for 40+ years, only to keep increasing the premium on the Part B insurance each year, and if that same company covered only what was covered in Medicare....people would really be screaming.

I'm not sure what this means. I've been on Medicare about three years now. I'm happier with it than I was with my UHC policy that I had before. The coverage is better, I have a wide choice of physicians, and the premium is considerably less than the for-profit insurance coverage I had previously. In fact, the only thing I dislike is the annual decision about the Part D that I have to make each year.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 18:45:06 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Nov 27, 2012 17:45:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

everyone loves to talk about how much of a scandal Medicare is, but nobody wants to talk about what a scandal Part B is.

I imagine if a private company took the same percentage out of a person's check for 40+ years, only to keep increasing the premium on the Part B insurance each year, and if that same company covered only what was covered in Medicare....people would really be screaming.

that might be true. but i have insurance that i have never used, and hopefully never will use. that is the other side of the coin.

my Uncle had a quadruple bypass on MC. it cost $250k. he had a stroke during it, and had a shitty quality of life his last (4) years until he died.

he felt like he had won the lottery tho.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm guessing you missed the point of telling the difference between negotiating vs. dictating price.

The government doesn't dictate prices. No drug company is forced at gun point to manufacture and supply certain drugs. If the government does set a price that they'll pay and say take it or leave it, the pharma company is free to say no and not offer their products to Medicare patients. When private companies do that it's called being a firm negotiator, when the government does it they're accused of dictating.

The government should be a hard nosed negotiator. They're taking money from my paycheck to benefit other people. I want them to be tight fisted assholes about it. Not that I want them to cut off Grandma and Grandpa's medical coverage, but I don't want them paying any more for that coverage than they have to. You know that whole fiscal conservative thing the Republican party used to talk about before they went on a crusade against abortion and gay marriage?

Isn't this board constantly complaining that the government isn't efficient enough? They waste money? Spending is out of control? Etc., and so forth? But we start talking about reigning in one of the most out of control areas of government spending and the "fiscal conservatives" wig out. So, let's be honest, do you actually care about the deficit or do you just care about preserving corporate welfare spending while cutting personal welfare spending?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 27, 2012 19:12:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

I imagine if a private company took the same percentage out of a person's check for 40+ years, only to keep increasing the premium on the Part B insurance each year, and if that same company covered only what was covered in Medicare....people would really be screaming.

I'm not sure what this means. I've been on Medicare about three years now. I'm happier with it than I was with my UHC policy that I had before. The coverage is better, I have a wide choice of physicians, and the premium is considerably less than the for-profit insurance coverage I had previously. In fact, the only thing I dislike is the annual decision about the Part D that I have to make each year.

Medicare is "cheaper" because it is supplemented by the 40+ years of paying into it before actually using it (all taxpayers put into the same basic pool). If Medicare without a supplement is better than your health policy before, you had a bare bones policy.

[Deleted]

Lock Box.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Message deleted by Politically_Incorrect12.

[formerexpat]

Social Security shouldn't be on the table. Deal with it separately since it's much easier to fix and should remain a separate program since it isn't funded from the general fund. Not to mention that not a single penny of the national debt is from Social Security.

Okay, Dick.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/dick-durbin-social-security-fiscal-cliff_n_2199224.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit and should not be a part of ongoing negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday, in a speech billed as a "major address making the progressive case for a bipartisan fiscal cliff deal."

Talk about the right parroting talking points.

Here you go, champ - knock yourself out with some facts: www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/27/social-security-fiscal-cliff/1730631/

[formerexpat]

Yes, but they've spent the last 50 or 60 years paying out less than they take in every year. That leftover money is held in the trust fund, earning interest I might add, to pay for future expenses. It's only in the last two years that they've ever paid out more than they took in, which they got from the trust fund holding all the excess money they took in from previous years. You know, that thing you're arguing doesn't exist.

To add, you need to look up the history of the Social Security system. It was switched from a reserved based system to a pay as you go in less than 5 years after Social Security was introduced; either in the late 30's or early 40's (can't remember off the top of my head).

Some say this was intentional because the people would have never agreed to a system whose underlying principle didn't have any level of self responsibility to it. Others believe the switch was due to the fear that the reserves being built up within the system was contributing to or prolonging the Great Depression.

The present value of the unfunded Social Security liability is $16 trillion. This is the amount the country would need to have TODAY to ensure that their assets and liabilities are matched (a key insurance concept).

At least Social Security can point its finger at the Prescription drug liability and Medicare and say that they are unfunded by the tune of $21 trillion and $84 trillion, respectively.

If you think any of these three are an easy fix when politicians are in charge of the necessary fixes, then you're very naive. Austerity measures are coming and the writing is on the wall from looking at other nations. The question is whether politicians will have the balls enough to make the changes themselves or will our hand be forced like it is in many European nations right now.

[Gardening Grandma]

Medicare is "cheaper" because it is supplemented by the 40+ years of paying into it before actually using it (all taxpayers put into the same basic pool). If Medicare without a supplement is better than your health policy before, you had a bare bones policy.

Yeah, probably. My policy before Medicare was through my previous employer. One of the Baby Bell telephone companies.
Yes, Medicare is better.

[deziloooooo]

seems to be another ..'Oh woe is me , oh woe is us....the sky is falling, the sky is falling....Mommy , mommy..."

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 18:26:05 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

the system is "pay as you go". everyone knows it.

Yes, but they've spent the last 50 or 60 years paying out less than they take in every year. That leftover money is held in the trust fund, earning interest I might add, to pay for future expenses. It's only in the last two years that they've ever paid out more than they took in, which they got from the trust fund holding all the excess money they took in from previous years. You know, that thing you're arguing doesn't exist.

it's all on paper, dark. there is no mountain of money in some box. it flows straight through the government. it is used to rebuild Iraq, to fund small businesses, for social security and medicare, to build roads, etc. but it is not HELD anywhere. it is bookeeping voodoo. you can't walk down and withdraw it. it doesn't really exist. except in the bookeeping sense.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

It concerns me that u think u know what you're talking about poll...

Social Security Trust Fund Data
www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/funds.html

[Value Buy]

Nov 28, 2012 1:03:26 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

seems to be another ..'Oh woe is me , oh woe is us....the sky is falling, the sky is falling....Mommy , mommy..."

Says a senior citizen receiving more dollar benefits than they ever paid in to the Government........subsidized by the still working poor.

[jkapp]

Nov 27, 2012 17:46:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 27, 2012 17:43:01 GMT -5 jkapp said:

That's what Medicare does with healthcare costs and its bankrupting the healthcare industry...

uh huh.....

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=0

tell you what: start a healthcare practice and only treat Medicare patients...I guarantee you'll be bankrupt after the first month. But keep your head in the sand, it seems to be where you like it best

[damnotagain]

Here is the reason SS ( medicare) is going bankrupt. This is just one case. The amounts are huge. Not hard to see who receives the most benefit from entitlements.

"Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit a total of approximately $452 million in fraudulent billing.

www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/05/20120502b.html

[Driftr]

Nov 27, 2012 22:47:29 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Yes, but they've spent the last 50 or 60 years paying out less than they take in every year. That leftover money is held in the trust fund, earning interest I might add, to pay for future expenses. It's only in the last two years that they've ever paid out more than they took in, which they got from the trust fund holding all the excess money they took in from previous years. You know, that thing you're arguing doesn't exist.

To add, you need to look up the history of the Social Security system. It was switched from a reserved based system to a pay as you go in less than 5 years after Social Security was introduced; either in the late 30's or early 40's (can't remember off the top of my head).

Some say this was intentional because the people would have never agreed to a system whose underlying principle didn't have any level of self responsibility to it. Others believe the switch was due to the fear that the reserves being built up within the system was contributing to or prolonging the Great Depression.

The present value of the unfunded Social Security liability is $16 trillion. This is the amount the country would need to have TODAY to ensure that their assets and liabilities are matched (a key insurance concept).

At least Social Security can point its finger at the Prescription drug liability and Medicare and say that they are unfunded by the tune of $21 trillion and $84 trillion, respectively.

If you think any of these three are an easy fix when politicians are in charge of the necessary fixes, then you're very naive. Austerity measures are coming and the writing is on the wall from looking at other nations. The question is whether politicians will have the balls enough to make the changes themselves or will our hand be forced like it is in many European nations right now.

When you get to issue debt denominated in your own currency, you have the power to inflate this problem away. We ever lose that and we're really up a creek. I could be wrong, but I think WW3 gets manufactured before that would be allowed to happen.

[EVT1]

People like Rick Scott who should be in jail for multiple felonies.

[Angel!]

Nov 27, 2012 22:35:10 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit and should not be a part of ongoing negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday, in a speech billed as a "major address making the progressive case for a bipartisan fiscal cliff deal."

Talk about the right parroting talking points.

Here you go, champ - knock yourself out with some facts: www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/27/social-security-fiscal-cliff/1730631/

I see this as flawed thinking. Social security as it is works fine. The only problem is that they have used the trust fund to "lend" to other govt spending. On paper the trust fund has over $2 Trillion, the only problem is that the govt spent it & now owes itself that $2 Trillion back.

I don't see that we need to change SS because the govt borrowed from the trust fund. SS is not the reason the govt got into debt, in fact SS is the reason the govt doesn't have more outside debt because they just borrowed from themselves. Other unfunded spending is the reason the govt is in debt.

The govt shouldn't screw seniors simply because they "borrowed" the money & can't afford to pay it back. They need to figure out how to pay it back.

Plus, if they want to work on SS to make it more sustainable beyond 2030, then this idea of changing the COL calculation is really stupid IMO. There are much better ways to improve the program.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2012 9:20:45 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Nov 27, 2012 17:46:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

uh huh.....

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=0

tell you what: start a healthcare practice and only treat Medicare patients...I guarantee you'll be bankrupt after the first month. But keep your head in the sand, it seems to be where you like it best

Kaiser has several plans that are medicare only. they have $0 out of pocket and $0 deductible. if it were truly such a horrible business for them, they would demand more out of their patients. it isn't. they are making money hand over fist off of them.

i used to own stock in a diabetes drug company. 100% of their revenue was derived from medicare. they made money hand over fist.

if you go bankrupt from treating only medicare patients, you must not be treating the right medicare patients.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2012 9:26:57 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Here is the reason SS ( medicare) is going bankrupt. This is just one case. The amounts are huge. Not hard to see who receives the most benefit from entitlements.

"Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit a total of approximately $452 million in fraudulent billing.

www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/05/20120502b.html

first of all, underfunding and bankruptcy are not the same thing.

second of all, $452M represents 0.05% of the Medicare program. that does not seem like an outrageous amount of fraud to me.

[Driftr]

Nov 28, 2012 12:26:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2012 9:26:57 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Here is the reason SS ( medicare) is going bankrupt. This is just one case. The amounts are huge. Not hard to see who receives the most benefit from entitlements.

"Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit a total of approximately $452 million in fraudulent billing.

www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/05/20120502b.html

first of all, underfunding and bankruptcy are not the same thing.

second of all, $452M represents 0.05% of the Medicare program. that does not seem like an outrageous amount of fraud to me.

Nope. .05% is a drop in the bucket. Unless the sting in those 7 cities is indicitive of fraud throughout the system. Then I'd hazard a guess that the 452M is just a drop in the total fraud bucket.

[deziloooooo]

Nov 28, 2012 9:17:03 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 28, 2012 1:03:26 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

seems to be another ..'Oh woe is me , oh woe is us....the sky is falling, the sky is falling....Mommy , mommy..."

Says a senior citizen receiving more dollar benefits than they ever paid in to the Government........subsidized by the still working poor.

Oh Value give it a rest already....if you really want to get after me don't forget the disability I have been getting from that gov't too and no I am not offering to give it back...never wanted to go there in the first place and are you complaining to your parents/grand parents too that they are taking advantage of the system getting those retirement sums if still with you if they are also receiving those $ from Uncle Sam...

The point is I have been hearing of all this doom and gloom rhetoric after all these national elections by this side and that for it seems forever..of which none seems to be happening...people leaving the country or going to..haven't a clue where they are going to actually..or buying more guns and ammo and food stuffs and going out into the hinter lands to board up and wait out the coming flame out.....still waiting for that one too...

and now your upset because those who have reached a certain stage in their lives have given way and allowed younger ones to take their jobs..after working, paying their fair share, some having served their country in harms way, some actually paying a price for that and are now collecting from that country that forced these folks to give funds to the gov't for these services they are now receiving and you are objecting to that ?? What is wrong with you my friend..? Oops..is that a personal attack? Not meant to be so if called to change words just let me know, will do so...have to be very careful around here lately..don't want to be the one upsetting the apple cart.